Wine? or Grape Juice?

[beej6]

I see grape juice fulfilling the "fruit of the vine" passage, and if with modern science we can avoid people from getting intoxicated from it when taking the Lord's Supper, I say, what's the problem? i don't see grape juice over wine as a requirement, but I think it's a good change.

That's the 'anti-alcoholic' argument I referenced above, and I don't believe it's correct. I need to check with my hepatologist (liver specialist, not lizard specialist) friend to be sure, but as a medical doctor, I strongly doubt that a thimbleful of table wine in the setting of a reverent Lord's Supper would cause even the most hardened church going alcoholic to relapse, nevermind be intoxicated. The sin is not in the thing but in the heart.

 

[RiverCritter]

I strongly doubt that a thimbleful of table wine in the setting of a reverent Lord's Supper would cause even the most hardened church going alcoholic to relapse, nevermind be intoxicated. The sin is not in the thing but in the heart.

Did they really use those little plastic communion cups way back in the first century? I thought plastic wasn't invented until much later... [/sarcasm]

And judging by Paul's rebuke concerning abuses in the Corinthian practice, it appears that they drank and ate quite a bit more (1st Cor 11:21).

Most people who oughtta know say that it only takes a "thimbleful" of any alcoholic beverage to send a recovering alcoholic right back to a former state of bondage. And even if not, if he thinks it could, it's wrong for him to drink it (Romans 14:23).

I see the point also that a few others have made about the Reformed reputation for quibbling over minutia and arguing over interpretations of the Confessions and BCOs and Position Papers with only rare reference to the Scripture (as "proof text"). But in the end I believe Jesus' words of Mark 7:15 apply much more to this issue:

...there is nothing outside the man which can defile him if it goes into him; but the things which proceed out of the man are what defile the man.

The reason that people argue this issue with quotes from Confessions and BCOs and theologians and philosophers is because the Scripture doesn't address the "wine or grape juice" issue either way. Therefore any rule-making we may impose on one another based on anything other than Scripture is unjust conscience-binding (Col 2:20-23, Gal 2:4-5, 5:1).

It makes sense to offer both wine and grape juice, so that we do not cause those described in Romans 14:23 to sin, yet we do not bind the consciences of the others.

-Robin

 

[Machaira]

. . .but as a medical doctor, I strongly doubt that a thimbleful of table wine in the setting of a reverent Lord's Supper would cause even the most hardened church going alcoholic to relapse, nevermind be intoxicated. The sin is not in the thing but in the heart.

I agree wholeheartedly. While I'm certainly not a doctor, if a thimble full or a sip of wine sends an individual over the edge, then that person need serious help . . . because its clearly all in his/her head/heart. I heard it said on some political talk show, (can't remember which one), that one of America's flaws is that we are so politically correct that we allow those on the fringes of society dictate how the majority lives.

 

[ChristopherPaul]

White's statement was in reference to Dave Hunt's charge of "elitism" since White challenged Dave on his use of Greek and history, and lack of formal training in either area. It was in the context of White addressing Hunt's charge of elitism that he basically made that point: That if you dare assert that things like an extensive knowledge of Greek and significant study of history might actually be necessary for a complete exegesis of Scripture, you are an unfair elitist - since other fields have their experts, "but in religion, everyone's opinions are equal" (I'm fairly sure those were White's exact words).

Though I explicitly remember the context and even wording of the statement, I cannot for the life of me seem to find it. Here you can see the articles that were at WhatLoveIsThis.com. The article on that page that is closest to the same basic message White was trying to get across when he made the statement is "The Charge of Elitism: A Response to Dave Hunt." The previous "open letter" to Hunt (also on that page) is good as well.

Very good, thank you Chris.

 

[Davidius]

The reason that people argue this issue with quotes from Confessions and BCOs and theologians and philosophers is because the Scripture doesn't address the "wine or grape juice" issue either way. Therefore any rule-making we may impose on one another based on anything other than Scripture is unjust conscience-binding (Col 2:20-23, Gal 2:4-5, 5:1).

It makes sense to offer both wine and grape juice, so that we do not cause those described in Romans 14:23 to sin, yet we do not bind the consciences of the others.

How does scripture not address the issue? Are you looking for a statement that says "You may only use grape juice and not wine"? If that be the case, why can't we use water or orange juice or sprite? Furthermore, if such a statement were necessary then we would not have sufficient biblical support for many doctrines which we hold dear. The only thing mentioned in the bible is wine and the only reason we're having this debate is not because of scripture's "silence" but because of legalists and others who want to do somersaults to make this more difficult than need be.

 

[3John2]

At the church I attend (Church of The King McAllen) we have BOTH. You we get to choose which one. I choose the wine. As much as I disagree with Kenneth Copeland I have to agree with him about something he said once "people that are sitting around arguing about should we be using wine for communion or grape juice ain't got any business taking PART in communion!" I kind of have to agree on that.

 

[Me Died Blue]

At the church I attend (Church of The King McAllen) we have BOTH. You we get to choose which one. I choose the wine. As much as I disagree with Kenneth Copeland I have to agree with him about something he said once "people that are sitting around arguing about should we be using wine for communion or grape juice ain't got any business taking PART in communion!" I kind of have to agree on that.

Do you realize that is essentially saying that people who consider the element of the drink biblically-relevant enough to debate should essentially be excommunicated and regarded as unbelievers? Even assuming that people who argue for one side or the other are in fact wrong that it matters, suggesting a barring from the Table distorts the biblical and confessional meaning of Church membership, communion and discipline altogether.

In all seriousness, you you honestly believe there is even a remote possibility of excommunication over charitable disagreement about the biblical relevance of the elements? Should John Murray have been barred from the Table at his congregation?

 

[Semper Fidelis]

White's statement was in reference to Dave Hunt's charge of "elitism" since White challenged Dave on his use of Greek and history, and lack of formal training in either area. It was in the context of White addressing Hunt's charge of elitism that he basically made that point: That if you dare assert that things like an extensive knowledge of Greek and significant study of history might actually be necessary for a complete exegesis of Scripture, you are an unfair elitist - since other fields have their experts, "but in religion, everyone's opinions are equal" (I'm fairly sure those were White's exact words).

Though I explicitly remember the context and even wording of the statement, I cannot for the life of me seem to find it. Here you can see the articles that were at WhatLoveIsThis.com. The article on that page that is closest to the same basic message White was trying to get across when he made the statement is "The Charge of Elitism: A Response to Dave Hunt." The previous "open letter" to Hunt (also on that page) is good as well.

Chris,

You can find it on this page: http://aomin.org/ReformedIndex.html (which I assumed you looked at). He refers to being called an elitist in his Open Letter to Dave Hunt. Where Hunt actually says it is in an interview. It's in the audio file: James White Discusses Calvinism with Dave Hunt

 

[Me Died Blue]

Chris,

You can find it on this page: http://aomin.org/ReformedIndex.html (which I assumed you looked at). He refers to being called an elitist in his Open Letter to Dave Hunt. Where Hunt actually says it is in an interview. It's in the audio file: James White Discusses Calvinism with Dave Hunt

Thanks for posting that as well, as it's certainly more convenient to be able to refer someone to the real page rather than an Archive.org link. The "Open Letter to Dave Hunt" and "The Charge of Elitism" were both part of a series of exchanges between White and Hunt around the same time, which included several other letters as well. I skimmed both of those articles yesterday, however, and neither of them seem to be the one that contained that particular statement, so I'm not sure which article in the series it was in at this point.

 

[Calvibaptist]

How does scripture not address the issue? Are you looking for a statement that says "You may only use grape juice and not wine"? If that be the case, why can't we use water or orange juice or sprite? Furthermore, if such a statement were necessary then we would not have sufficient biblical support for many doctrines which we hold dear. The only thing mentioned in the bible is wine and the only reason we're having this debate is not because of scripture's "silence" but because of legalists and others who want to do somersaults to make this more difficult than need be.

Again, the Bible does NOT mention wine. The Bible clearly uses two phrases translated "cup" and "fruit of the vine." Both wine and grape-juice fit into these categories. Saying that "the only thing mentioned in the bible is wine" is patently wrong and ignores the reality of God's inspiration. If God had wanted to be specific about the word wine, He would have inspired the word "oinos" or one of the other two usual Greek words for wine. He did not.

BTW, I am not a legalist who is opposed to drinking. I am a biblicist that thinks that requiring wine is a tradition of man that is not necessitated by the language of Scripture. Apple juice and other fruit juices (as well as Coke) would be forbidden because they are not the "fruit of the vine." Alcoholic content has no concern in this matter from a biblical standpoint.

 

[Semper Fidelis]

Thanks for posting that as well, as it's certainly more convenient to be able to refer someone to the real page rather than an Archive.org link. The "Open Letter to Dave Hunt" and "The Charge of Elitism" were both part of a series of exchanges between White and Hunt around the same time, which included several other letters as well. I skimmed both of those articles yesterday, however, and neither of them seem to be the one that contained that particular statement, so I'm not sure which article in the series it was in at this point.

Chris,

I don't think Dave Hunt ever wrote that Greek speakers are elitists. I believe he said it in the audio link I gave you. I don't have time to listen to it but I am 99% positive it's in there.

 

[Davidius]

Again, the Bible does NOT mention wine. The Bible clearly uses two phrases translated "cup" and "fruit of the vine." Both wine and grape-juice fit into these categories. Saying that "the only thing mentioned in the bible is wine" is patently wrong and ignores the reality of God's inspiration. If God had wanted to be specific about the word wine, He would have inspired the word "oinos" or one of the other two usual Greek words for wine. He did not.

BTW, I am not a legalist who is opposed to drinking. I am a biblicist that thinks that requiring wine is a tradition of man that is not necessitated by the language of Scripture. Apple juice and other fruit juices (as well as Coke) would be forbidden because they are not the "fruit of the vine." Alcoholic content has no concern in this matter from a biblical standpoint.

Right...so the Corinthians were getting drunk on grape juice, then?

Perhaps Paul could've solved the whole issue at Corinth by just telling them to use grape juice instead of wine, thereby removing the possibility of drunkenness altogether. But that's not how he addressed the problem, is it?

One can be a "biblicist" without looking for a verse that says "wine is the only way to do communion." You're a trinitarian, right?

 

[Me Died Blue]

Chris,

I don't think Dave Hunt ever wrote that Greek speakers are elitists. I believe he said it in the audio link I gave you. I don't have time to listen to it but I am 99% positive it's in there.

The statement I'm talking about isn't Hunt's, but White's statement on the contemporary mindset of "in religion, everyone's opinions are equal." Do you think that's in there?

 

[Semper Fidelis]

The statement I'm talking about isn't Hunt's, but White's statement on the contemporary mindset of "in religion, everyone's opinions are equal." Do you think that's in there?

I'm not sure about that. The focus of that discussion and the debate that ensued was Hunt's ridiculous views on Calvinism and Scripture. I only noticed the fact that you were referring to Hunt calling White an elitist and that audio file is where it's located.

 

[Semper Fidelis]

At the church I attend (Church of The King McAllen) we have BOTH. You we get to choose which one. I choose the wine. As much as I disagree with Kenneth Copeland I have to agree with him about something he said once "people that are sitting around arguing about should we be using wine for communion or grape juice ain't got any business taking PART in communion!" I kind of have to agree on that.

This post represents a basic misunderstanding of the issue at hand. There are many that may be saying this in a more sophisticated way but they're saying essentially: this doesn't matter, if people want to use grape juice then those who want to argue against it are disputing over debatable matters.

First, debatable matters are things indifferent. God has not commanded one way or another so the Christian has liberty. I don't believe this issue can be boiled down so simplistically as if it were a matter indifferent (I'll elaborate).

Second, this debate usually ensues this way:
a. Some immature believer believes touching and tasting alchohol is a sin.
b. He wants to commune with others who have always celebrated communion with wine.
c. Because he is offended by it, he doesn't want to attend a Church that only serves wine and so will not fellowship with that Church.
d. Elders are concerned about losing people they would otherwise not and so they offer the option or change the wine wholesale to grape juice.

Exceptions to the rule are a bad way to form the case. The above is normally the way that these discussions ensue. We're told by no less an authority than Kenneth Copeland that discussions about this are bad so the only thing left for those who are going to be the "mature party" in this is to let the element change without any discussion whatsoever.

Let me offer what I consider are the two most important things to consider in this debate:

1. If this is a matter of the Regulative Principle of Worship and the Sacrament was introduced with bread and wine (as the Passover always was) then to change the accidents of an element is no small matter.

2. Equally fundamental to this discussion is an extremely faulty view of the "weaker brother", Christian Libery, and Pharisaism. The weaker brother in Scripture is not the guy that has a conviction that eating jelly beans are sinful and so we all decide to stop eating jelly beans around John because "jellybeans are of the devil". The weaker brother is one who has a Biblical scruple and is being overscrupulous in the matter. It is not just any scruple but it needs to have some warrant in the Scripture. For instance, God once commanded men not to eat the flesh of a pig, that law is abrogated but the man still holds that scruple. God has now given liberty to the man to eat pork but he refuses, personally, because he still holds that, for him, it is wrong to do so.

Now this overscrupulous man has two options for this scruple. He can quietly maintain this scruple for himself, not be offended by others who eat pork because he knows it's not wrong, and fellowship gladly with them without complaint. The other option to take is to be the Pharisee: to hold that because it is sinful for me that it is sinful for all and others are sinning by doing this around me. He withdraws from fellowship because the Gentiles keep bringing hog knuckles and fellowships only with other Pharisees who remain with him on this point.

Some may believe I'm being a little bit hard on this issue by bringing the term Pharisee into this discussion. Well, for those Jews that wanted to stay kosher, at least they could provide a Scriptural warrant for doing so. That is, they had the whole of the Torah to get over and, because you don't have to eat pork then you can live life quietly without bugging the guys next to you or, indeed, enslaving them to a scruple they need not bear.

The person with a scruple against touching and tasting alchohol has no Scriptural warrant whatsoever to undergird the conviction that even putting it to your lips is sin. Further, this conviction requires them to overthrow a command to commune with others in the Lord's Supper for the sake of a man-made conviction.

The real reason I stand against movements to introduce grape juice usually bear little on the RPW. As an aside, I've never met a person who wants to insist upon grape juice that is much of a proponent for the RPW but that's a different matter. The real issue for me, in this matter, is that the person that wants it to happen is wanting it for all the wrong reasons. They're the guy with the jellybean conviction that wants everyone else to abstain. Why do they insist on grape juice? That's the question you have to ask. They insist, by and large, because religion is about eating and drinking, in their mind, and that's what defiles a man. The reason they want grape juice is for un-Christian reasons. Now we can accommodate such people so we don't offend them or we can teach them.

While I'm being forthright here, I would normally want to gently teach such a man and determine if he's actually teachable. Not every person that darkens the door of a Reformed Church, calling himself a Christian, really understands the Gospel. What better way to pinpoint a fundamental misunderstanding of the Gospel than at the point of believing that drinking is what defiles a man.

If you merely accommodate the scruple you not only never have to teach men to throw away vestiges of American revivalism but you give silent approval that maybe, just maybe, there is something wrong with alchohol after all. Perhaps those that have both grape and wine run less of a risk in this matter but those that switch completely to grape juice are endorsing this false American scruple whether they say they do or not. I just cannot understand the logic of those who believe it is acceptable for Christians to hang on to just a little bit of self-righteousness even if it's just a teensy-weensy bit of it.

Thus, it's pointless to squabble against those who hold that this is a matter of the RPW by trying to demonstrate to them that it's "the Cup" or "fruit of the vine". You need to look beyond that point as to why it is necessary to go the way of grape juice. You see, Paul would circumcise Timothy as long as it meant nothing regading acceptability before God but, as soon as circumcision was about being acceptable before God he withstood it as a denial of the Gospel. That's my position on grape juice.

 

[elnwood]

Right...so the Corinthians were getting drunk on grape juice, then?

Perhaps Paul could've solved the whole issue at Corinth by just telling them to use grape juice instead of wine, thereby removing the possibility of drunkenness altogether. But that's not how he addressed the problem, is it?

One can be a "biblicist" without looking for a verse that says "wine is the only way to do communion." You're a trinitarian, right?

They didn't have non-fermented grape juice because pasteurization wasn't invented until the 19th century. Would Paul have used grape juice if it had been invented? Who knows, but I think it certainly qualifies as "fruit of the vine." Would you disagree, CarolinaCalvinist?

 

[Semper Fidelis]

They didn't have non-fermented grape juice because pasteurization wasn't invented until the 19th century. Would Paul have used grape juice if it had been invented? Who knows, but I think it certainly qualifies as "fruit of the vine." Would you disagree, CarolinaCalvinist?

As I stated above, if Paul believed for a moment that people were requesting the Sacrament be altered to grape juice because it made them more acceptable to God he would have withstood it.

 

[Calvibaptist]

Right...so the Corinthians were getting drunk on grape juice, then?

Perhaps Paul could've solved the whole issue at Corinth by just telling them to use grape juice instead of wine, thereby removing the possibility of drunkenness altogether. But that's not how he addressed the problem, is it?

One can be a "biblicist" without looking for a verse that says "wine is the only way to do communion." You're a trinitarian, right?

I never said that they used grape juice in Corinth. I never suggested that Paul would have told anybody to use grape juice. I never argued that they didn't use wine at the Lord's Supper (which is where your trinitarian argument would fit in). I said that the Bible uses specific terms like "cup" and "fruit of the vine." Both of these terms COULD AND USUALLY DO mean wine. BUT they also could mean grape juice. I was reacting against a definitive statement that was simply incorrect.

 

[Calvibaptist]

The real reason I stand against movements to introduce grape juice usually bear little on the RPW. As an aside, I've never met a person who wants to insist upon grape juice that is much of a proponent for the RPW but that's a different matter. The real issue for me, in this matter, is that the person that wants it to happen is wanting it for all the wrong reasons. They're the guy with the jellybean conviction that wants everyone else to abstain. Why do they insist on grape juice? That's the question you have to ask. They insist, by and large, because religion is about eating and drinking, in their mind, and that's what defiles a man. The reason they want grape juice is for un-Christian reasons. Now we can accommodate such people so we don't offend them or we can teach them.

Which is exactly my point about the wine/grape juice debate. Christianity is NOT all about eating and drinking. If that is true as you say, then why argue against the use of grape juice in favor of wine. After all, it is not what goes into a man that defiles a man.

Do you see the fallacy of your logic here. Your most important reason for arguing against the use of grape juice is equally applicable to your belief that it should be only wine.

BTW, I usually have little patience for the "weaker brother" argument because it is often brought up by people who have been believers for 20 years and are not (or at least should not be) weaker brothers. This debate is usually argued by people who are leaders who are concerned for weaker brothers. Or so they say. Mostly people argue FOR the use of grape juice because they are agin drinking.

I, personally, have no grudge against those who choose to drink or those who choose not to drink, so this is not about alcohol as far as I am concerned. It is about making a tradition of man the Law of God. If you were to say to me, "You know, they used wine at the Lord's Supper in biblical times, so it is probably a good idea that we use wine today." I would have no problem. But when you say, "They used wine at the Lord's Supper in biblical times, so we are required to use wine today," it is then that I have a problem. They reclined at a table and ate unleavened bread and wore sandals and robes and took a bath once a week. Which of these would you require us to do as well? How far do you want to take your man-made rules?

 

[Semper Fidelis]

Which is exactly my point about the wine/grape juice debate. Christianity is NOT all about eating and drinking. If that is true as you say, then why argue against the use of grape juice in favor of wine. After all, it is not what goes into a man that defiles a man.

Do you see the fallacy of your logic here. Your most important reason for arguing against the use of grape juice is equally applicable to your belief that it should be only wine.

BTW, I usually have little patience for the "weaker brother" argument because it is often brought up by people who have been believers for 20 years and are not (or at least should not be) weaker brothers. This debate is usually argued by people who are leaders who are concerned for weaker brothers. Or so they say. Mostly people argue FOR the use of grape juice because they are agin drinking.

I, personally, have no grudge against those who choose to drink or those who choose not to drink, so this is not about alcohol as far as I am concerned. It is about making a tradition of man the Law of God. If you were to say to me, "You know, they used wine at the Lord's Supper in biblical times, so it is probably a good idea that we use wine today." I would have no problem. But when you say, "They used wine at the Lord's Supper in biblical times, so we are required to use wine today," it is then that I have a problem. They reclined at a table and ate unleavened bread and wore sandals and robes and took a bath once a week. Which of these would you require us to do as well? How far do you want to take your man-made rules?

Did you actually read my post or just the snippet you quoted? I'm concerned that you actually believe that your response actually bears, even obliquely, upon the substance of my reply. The words you quote are mine but I don't recognize my argument in what you're supposedly disputing with.

 

[KMK]

First, debatable matters are things indifferent.

Like what time church starts.

Second, this debate usually ensues this way:
a. Some immature believer believes touching and tasting alchohol is a sin.
b. He wants to commune with others who have always celebrated communion with wine.
c. Because he is offended by it, he doesn't want to attend a Church that only serves wine and so will not fellowship with that Church.
d. Elders are concerned about losing people they would otherwise not and so they offer the option or change the wine wholesale to grape juice.

Actually, out here in So Cal it is not the immature believers that are taste not touch not, it is the pastors and elders!

2. Equally fundamental to this discussion is an extremely faulty view of the "weaker brother", Christian Libery, and Pharisaism. The weaker brother in Scripture is not the guy that has a conviction that eating jelly beans are sinful and so we all decide to stop eating jelly beans around John because "jellybeans are of the devil". The weaker brother is one who has a Biblical scruple and is being overscrupulous in the matter. It is not just any scruple but it needs to have some warrant in the Scripture. For instance, God once commanded men not to eat the flesh of a pig, that law is abrogated but the man still holds that scruple. God has now given liberty to the man to eat pork but he refuses, personally, because he still holds that, for him, it is wrong to do so.

Exactly. 1 Cor 8 and Rom 14 never say anything about drunkenness. Paul is dealing with the 'stumblingblock' and 'occasion to fall' of second temple Judaism not the weakness of the flesh.

Is there a parallel to be drawn here? Is the modern American christian tradition of using grape juice a kind of Judaism? I believe Mark 7 would support this idea. And if this is the case then Rom 14 might apply when a 'juice man' comes into fellowship with a 'wine church'. That 'wine church' needs to give the 'juice man' knowledge before encouraging him to take the wine or they might be in danger of stumbling him. But once that man has been given the knowledge, the issue is over. Even if the 'juice man' does not agree, the church itself is not bound to change everything because one man does not agree. Nor does the 'juice man' have the right to 'judge' the 'wine church' because it is following the Bible.

The person with a scruple against touching and tasting alchohol has no Scriptural warrant whatsoever to undergird the conviction that even putting it to your lips is sin. Further, this conviction requires them to overthrow a command to commune with others in the Lord's Supper for the sake of a man-made conviction.

And isn't it interesting that those who say, "It doesn't matter what the element is, it is a matter of the heart," will balk when you reply, "If it doesn't matter, then let's use wine!"

If you merely accommodate the scruple you not only never have to teach men to throw away vestiges of American revivalism but you give silent approval that maybe, just maybe, there is something wrong with alchohol after all. Perhaps those that have both grape and wine run less of a risk in this matter but those that switch completely to grape juice are endorsing this false American scruple whether they say they do or not. I just cannot understand the logic of those who believe it is acceptable for Christians to hang on to just a little bit of self-righteousness even if it's just a teensy-weensy bit of it.

And educating sheep can be very difficult. Many pastors here in So Cal have given up trying to educate sheep at all. I sat under pastors here for years and never once heard a 'condemnation and commendation of wine' sermon. (Although I did hear about my SHAPE.)

You need to look beyond that point as to why it is necessary to go the way of grape juice. You see, Paul would circumcise Timothy as long as it meant nothing regading acceptability before God but, as soon as circumcision was about being acceptable before God he withstood it as a denial of the Gospel. That's my position on grape juice.

Thank you for your point of view, and thank you for your service for our country. We pray regularly at our church that our nation would be worthy of the sacrifice men like you have and are giving her.

I distribut both wine and grape juice but am looking forward to further educating my sheep to the point they ask me to stop using grape juice.

 

[Calvibaptist]

Did you actually read my post or just the snippet you quoted? I'm concerned that you actually believe that your response actually bears, even obliquely, upon the substance of my reply. The words you quote are mine but I don't recognize my argument in what you're supposedly disputing with.

For the record I did read your whole post and had no problem with the majority of what you said. I had a problem with the paragraph (what you call a snippet) that I quoted because you said it was the "real reason" that you "stand against movements" to use grape juice, and that is what I responded to. If it wasn't the real point you were trying to make, why did you say it was?

I don't have a problem with people using wine in communion. I don't have a problem with people using grape juice in communion. I have a problem with people making a law out of something that is not clearly COMMANDED in Scripture. Sure they did things a certain way back then. Do we do everything the same way they did it? No. We don't do communion once a year at Passover, which I would argue is just as important as whether wine is used or not.

 

[Semper Fidelis]

For the record I did read your whole post and had no problem with the majority of what you said. I had a problem with the paragraph (what you call a snippet) that I quoted because you said it was the "real reason" that you "stand against movements" to use grape juice, and that is what I responded to. If it wasn't the real point you were trying to make, why did you say it was?

I don't have a problem with people using wine in communion. I don't have a problem with people using grape juice in communion. I have a problem with people making a law out of something that is not clearly COMMANDED in Scripture. Sure they did things a certain way back then. Do we do everything the same way they did it? No. We don't do communion once a year at Passover, which I would argue is just as important as whether wine is used or not.

The issue is that you quote that snippet but then ask a question that's been answered and got to the heart of why one would want to teach on such a subject. You should have also gathered that, leaving aside the issue of the RPW, I didn't believe the accidents of wine or grape juice was the other key problem. It was the heart of the requester.

If a person wants grape juice because they maintain an island of self-righteous Pharisaism concerning eating and drinking then I believe it is the responsibility of those mature in the Lord to teach them on the subject. "Who cares if it's grape juice?" in response to my post is like writing "Who cares if some of the congregation are just a little bit not believing in the Gospel?"

Please read what I wrote again carefully and you will see that my concern is not on the accidents of the debate but on the underlying reason people want something. This is why I keep referring to Paul and circumcision. He did circumcise Timothy in one circumstance and would have refused in another. You have to ask yourself what the difference of the circumstance was.

 

[Catechist]

Rev. Lewis,

Grape Juice... White Wine.... or maybe the juice of a Cocoa tree?

The Economy of the Covenants by Witsius has brought to mind some interesting questions. A few comments and thoughts are interspersed below.

Anyone strictly speaking using red wine by necessity does so by inference. White was also appeared hence in the Jerusalem Talmud, commanded that white be used if it was better than the red. The scriptures speak of the fruit of the vine. And with no greater certainty can we determine, whether Christ used neat wines, or wines mixed with water.

"but as it is possible, nay, frequently happens, that in some countries, neither bread or wine are used, as in America, and other parts of the world, where, instead of bread, they have food prepared of pulse, or herbs, or of the fruits or even the bark of trees; instead of wine, their drink is made of honey, or sugar, or other aromatics, or even the juice of the cocoa tree."

"Indeed we think, that no rash innovations should be made in the use of the sacraments: but then necessity has no law."

Witsius further, "Our judgment is this: It does not appear, whether Christ mixed the wine, or drank it pure. Yet we grant the former to be more probable; because it was a more frequent practice among the Jews, on account of the generousness or their wines: hence, in the rubic of the festivals, when they speak of the wine, they mix him a cup.....Nor is the practice of the ancient church to be too much insisted upon in this case: for, as the thing is indifferent, the modern church has the same right that the ancient had. In such things, the liberty, which Christ hath left his people, ought to remain inviolable; who are to look on nothing as binding and necessary, but his word only. Nay, after the rite of mixing began to be accounted necessary, it was prudently done in reformed churches, for the preservation of liberty, to prefer the pure wine. Just as if ever the necessity of pure wine should begin to be established, it would be, perhaps better to return to the practice of mixing it.

Or if we were to bind ourselves to a multitude of ancient subordinate standards, were would be be? Could we dare veer from the synod of Tribur, under the emperor Arnulphus, in the year 895, or according to others 899, it was provided that "none should perform the holy mysteries, without mixing wine and water; but that two parts should be wine: because the majesty of the blood of Christ is greater than the weakness of the people."

Or the Greeks put not only water, but also boiling water into the wine, and lest it should, on any account, cool before the receive it, they do not pour it in til after the elevation: to signify, say they, that, from the side of our Lord on the cross flowed hot blood.

When allegorizing the elements beyond the principal thing in the analogy be lost, then so much for the symbols and elements.

"For everything, that Christ did, according to the custom of his nation, and on occasion of the passover, does not belong to the essence of the sacrament, nor has a mystical signification, nor in all its circumstances obtains the force of perpetual law."